Movies & films again

David Barnett · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 41

damnfine, for no damn fine reason, thought my original post was incoheremt.

All I wanted to know was if people thought the 2 words in the subject title
were synonymous or were slighly different. I am of the latter view.

Voitek, I think, implied, this newgroup was moribund, and I just thought I
would start a small discussion.
However, I concede the matter is trivial and not worth worrying about.

In future, I will only post if I liked a movie or not.
--
David Barnett

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

All I wanted to know was if people thought the 2 words in the subject title
> were synonymous or were slighly different. I am of the latter view.

But David, you didn't explain why!

> However, I concede the matter is trivial and not worth worrying about.
>
> In future, I will only post if I liked a movie or not.

Please tell me what you thought of Music and Lyrics starring Hugh Grant and
Drew Barrymore.
--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

PorchMonkey4Life · External Since: Jul 31, 2006 Posts: 573

V01TeK wrote:
>
> All I wanted to know was if people thought the 2 words in the subject title
>> were synonymous or were slighly different. I am of the latter view.
>
> But David, you didn't explain why!
>
>> However, I concede the matter is trivial and not worth worrying about.
>>
>> In future, I will only post if I liked a movie or not.
>
> Please tell me what you thought of Music and Lyrics starring Hugh Grant
> and Drew Barrymore.
Too cheap to buy a ticket, eh?

David Barnett · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 41

"V01TeK" <chrisandjill.DeleteThis@exemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:45ff386e$0$4614$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> All I wanted to know was if people thought the 2 words in the subject
> title
>> were synonymous or were slighly different. I am of the latter view.
>
> But David, you didn't explain why!

I've just said it above - to get what other people thought.

>> However, I concede the matter is trivial and not worth worrying about.
>>
>> In future, I will only post if I liked a movie or not.
>
> Please tell me what you thought of Music and Lyrics starring Hugh Grant
> and Drew Barrymore.

I am yet to see this movie.
It is on at the local cinema, and I would like to see it.
Unfortunately, it is on at somewhat unsuitable times for my wife & self.

After writing that & conferring with my wife, we now intend to see it this
Friday morning.
I will then post what we both thought of it.
--
David Barnett

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

>> Please tell me what you thought of Music and Lyrics starring Hugh Grant
>> and Drew Barrymore.
> Too cheap to buy a ticket, eh?

Way to miss the subtext of what I was saying.
--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

PorchMonkey4Life · External Since: Jul 31, 2006 Posts: 573

V01TeK wrote:
>
>>> Please tell me what you thought of Music and Lyrics starring Hugh
>>> Grant and Drew Barrymore.
>> Too cheap to buy a ticket, eh?
>
> Way to miss the subtext of what I was saying.
Way to demonstrate what a total as$hole you are.. Also who gives a $hit
what you say anyways, tosser.

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

>>
>> Way to miss the subtext of what I was saying.
> Way to demonstrate what a total as$hole you are.. Also who gives a $hit
> what you say anyways, tosser.

You'll have to explain what an as$hole is and why I am one. I couldn't work
it out on my currency converter.
--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

"David Barnett" <dbarnett DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6R1Mh.14088$8U4.2719@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "V01TeK" <chrisandjill DeleteThis @exemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45ff386e$0$4614$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>
>> All I wanted to know was if people thought the 2 words in the subject
>> title
>>> were synonymous or were slighly different. I am of the latter view.
>>
>> But David, you didn't explain why!
>
> I've just said it above - to get what other people thought.
>

No, David: you didn't say why you thought the two things were different.
Obviously you have a reason for thinking that if you want to see what other
people think.
--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

David Barnett · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 41

"V01TeK" <chrisandjill.TakeThisOut@exemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4601bfc8$0$4605$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> No, David: you didn't say why you thought the two things were different.
> Obviously you have a reason for thinking that if you want to see what
> other people think.

As previously posted, IMHO films include documentaries etc, whereas movies
don't.
--
David Barnett

damnfine · External Since: Mar 19, 2005 Posts: 178

"David Barnett" wrote:
>> No, David: you didn't say why you thought the two things were different.
>> Obviously you have a reason for thinking that if you want to see what
>> other people think.
>
> As previously posted, IMHO films include documentaries etc, whereas movies
> don't.

Well, let's all just make up new definitions for existing words...

--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Given the astounding number of galaxies and potential worlds arrayed
overhead, the complexities of life on earth and the advances in our ethical
discourse over the last 2,000 years, the world's religions offer a view of
reality that is now so utterly impoverished as to scarcely constitute a view
of reality at all." - Sam Harris

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

> As previously posted, IMHO films include documentaries etc, whereas movies
> don't.

But you haven't said WHY you think that! Why do you make that distinction?

--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

David Barnett · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 41

"damnfine" <damnfine.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:130bbtpib3eef54@corp.supernews.com...
> "David Barnett" wrote:
>>> No, David: you didn't say why you thought the two things were different.
>>> Obviously you have a reason for thinking that if you want to see what
>>> other people think.
>>
>> As previously posted, IMHO films include documentaries etc, whereas
>> movies don't.
>
> Well, let's all just make up new definitions for existing words...

In other words you disagree with me.
Why not just say so, instead of your ridiculous post?
--
David Barnett

David Barnett · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 41

"V01TeK" <chrisandjill.DeleteThis@exemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4605bca2$0$4605$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>> As previously posted, IMHO films include documentaries etc, whereas
>> movies
>> don't.
>
> But you haven't said WHY you think that! Why do you make that distinction?

Now you are asking the impossible!
Why do people think the way they do?
"The devil made them do it" Smile

Why does damnfine post the way he does?
Why do Catholics et al believe one has to have "faith"? etc etc.

In my case I just do intuitively - I don't know why.
A movie for example is "Gone With The Wind" & not an exposition on The
Barrier Reef. Films include movies but not vice versa - just my thoughts.
I concede I may be the only person in the world who thinks this way.

I'm not telling people to make up new definitions for words, as damnfine
seems to think - if everyone thinks these 2 words are completely synonymous,
and I emphasise "completely", that is OK with me.
--
David Barnett

damnfine · External Since: Mar 19, 2005 Posts: 178

"David Barnett" wrote:
>>> As previously posted, IMHO films include documentaries etc, whereas
>>> movies don't.
>>
>> Well, let's all just make up new definitions for existing words...
>
> In other words you disagree with me.

That's hard to say, I'm not sure that you even said anything which bears
enough semantic value in order to allow disagreement.

> Why not just say so, instead of your ridiculous post?

Sorry, I just assumed saying ridiculous things was the point of the thread.

--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Given the astounding number of galaxies and potential worlds arrayed
overhead, the complexities of life on earth and the advances in our ethical
discourse over the last 2,000 years, the world's religions offer a view of
reality that is now so utterly impoverished as to scarcely constitute a view
of reality at all." - Sam Harris

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

>>
>> But you haven't said WHY you think that! Why do you make that
>> distinction?
>
> Now you are asking the impossible!

No, I'm not!
Let's pretend I'm you. I come to this NG and say, "I think "movies" and
"films", as terms for motion pictures, are quantifiably different." I would
have a reason for saying that, like, for example, that a movie must consist
of a fictional narrative, whereas film can encompass all motion pictures.
(Not saying that's my reason, but that's just for sake of example.)

> Why do people think the way they do?
> "The devil made them do it" Smile

If I liked chocolate icecream more than strawberry icecream (I don't), I
could probably say that it's because I find chocolate a richer flavour, and
fruit doesn't appeal to me.
I would posit that there is very little, if anything at all, in this world
that is "just so". There is generally a reason for everything if you examine
it carefully enough. People who think otherwise tend to be religious.

> In my case I just do intuitively - I don't know why.

If you thought hard enough, I'm sure you could come up with something.

--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

>>
>> But you haven't said WHY you think that! Why do you make that
>> distinction?
>
> Now you are asking the impossible!

No, I'm not!
Let's pretend I'm you. I come to this NG and say, "I think "movies" and
"films", as terms for motion pictures, are quantifiably different." I would
have a reason for saying that, like, for example, that a movie must consist
of a fictional narrative, whereas film can encompass all motion pictures.
(Not saying that's my reason, but that's just for sake of example.)

> Why do people think the way they do?
> "The devil made them do it" Smile

If I liked chocolate icecream more than strawberry icecream (I don't), I
could probably say that it's because I find chocolate a richer flavour, and
fruit doesn't appeal to me.
I would posit that there is very little, if anything at all, in this world
that is "just so". There is generally a reason for everything if you examine
it carefully enough. People who think otherwise tend to be religious.

> In my case I just do intuitively - I don't know why.

If you thought hard enough, I'm sure you could come up with something.

--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

David Barnett · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 41

"V01TeK" <chrisandjill.RemoveThis@exemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:460dff2c$0$4610$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>>>
>>> But you haven't said WHY you think that! Why do you make that
>>> distinction?
>>
>> Now you are asking the impossible!
>
> No, I'm not!
> Let's pretend I'm you. I come to this NG and say, "I think "movies" and
> "films", as terms for motion pictures, are quantifiably different." I
> would have a reason for saying that, like, for example, that a movie must
> consist of a fictional narrative, whereas film can encompass all motion
> pictures. (Not saying that's my reason, but that's just for sake of
> example.)
>
>
>> Why do people think the way they do?
>> "The devil made them do it" Smile

>
> If I liked chocolate icecream more than strawberry icecream (I don't), I
> could probably say that it's because I find chocolate a richer flavour,
> and fruit doesn't appeal to me.
> I would posit that there is very little, if anything at all, in this world
> that is "just so". There is generally a reason for everything if you
> examine it carefully enough. People who think otherwise tend to be
> religious.
>
>> In my case I just do intuitively - I don't know why.
>
> If you thought hard enough, I'm sure you could come up with something.

Why 2 identical replies?
--
David Barnett

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

> Why 2 identical replies?
> --

I don't know, David. Perhaps something happened with my news server. It
wasn't deliberate.
The more pertinent question is: why is that the only thing you have in
response to my post, which was chock-full of meaningful exploration of YOUR
original question?
--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

> Why 2 identical replies?
> --

I don't know, David. Perhaps something happened with my news server. It
wasn't deliberate.
The more pertinent question is: why is that the only thing you have in
response to my post, which was chock-full of meaningful exploration of YOUR
original question?
--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris

V01TeK · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 41

"V01TeK" <chrisandjill.DeleteThis@exemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4615caf3$0$4609$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>> Why 2 identical replies?
>> --

See, it happened again! I don't know what's going on - if it troubles you
that much, ignore the second post.
--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris